The New York Times has our favorite Klimazwiebel topic on page 1, and they put it into a specific context:
"Skeptics find fault with U.N.Panel'"
On the one hand, this article sees the critique of the I.P.C.C. as the work of the skeptics and the political right wing. They also add that the British newspaper (Telegraph and Times) are right wing newspapers. On the other hand, Pielke jr. gets space to express his arguments against Pachauri. Pilke jr. states that the whole conflict is pretty 'polarized', but he insists that Pachauri should resign from office:
“This is not about whether this is a good person or a good cause; it’s about the integrity of the scientific process,” Dr. Pielke said, adding: “This has become so polarized, it’s like you must be in cahoots with the bad guys if you are at all negative about Pachauri.”
This brings us back to a topic that I raised already several times: are you responsible for the friends you have? What are the political implications of the campaign against the I.P.C.C.? And why right now? The New York Times raises these questions more or less explicitly; for European readers it might be important to know that skeptics in the U.S. are mostly identified with the right wing populists.